Do you like JSON-LD?
-
Do you like JSON-LD?
-
? [[global:guest]] crossposted this topic to General Discussion
-
Do you like JSON-LD?
-
Do you like JSON-LD?
@evan JRD is also linked data, but a lot easier to implement and understand. Why is LD really necessary? Is the problem of multiple schemas colliding with contextual ambiguity a real enough problem in practice to require all the complexity of LD up front?
It's always seemed like a bunch of YAGNI to me but I'm also not deep into this stuff so I'm honestly curious.
-
Do you like JSON-LD?
@evan@cosocial.ca we adopted JSON-LD for our knowledge graph at work too. Its flexibility and interoperability is a blessing.
-
Do you like JSON-LD?
@evan@cosocial.ca dems fightin' words
-
@evan JRD is also linked data, but a lot easier to implement and understand. Why is LD really necessary? Is the problem of multiple schemas colliding with contextual ambiguity a real enough problem in practice to require all the complexity of LD up front?
It's always seemed like a bunch of YAGNI to me but I'm also not deep into this stuff so I'm honestly curious.
> @cmars@infosec.exchange said:
>
> Is the problem of multiple schemas colliding with contextual ambiguity a real enough problem in practice to require all the complexity of LD up front?You are not wrong. There are two ways to approach the problem of namespace collisions.
Technically, that's JSON-LD, and socially, which is talking to the other party and sharing the name space or choosing a different name.
Maybe JSON-LD was invented because people don't like confrontation hehe
-
Do you like JSON-LD?
@evan a lighter weight json-ld-like solution would have been ideal imo... i feel like it pulled in a lot of complexity for the 5-10% that's actually useful for ActivityPub and in actual practice.
-
@toddsundsted@epiktistes.com @julian@activitypub.space @cmars@infosec.exchange @evan@cosocial.ca
The real purpose of grotesquely overengineered standards like ActivityStreams — standards so absurdly complex that they needed their own toolchain just to generate the code you were then expected to finish by hand — was never merely interoperability. It was gatekeeping disguised as architecture.
Make the standard complicated enough, verbose enough, and expensive enough to implement, and the lone programmer disappears from the picture. At that point, only a medium-sized company, a large corporation, or some well-funded foundation can realistically afford to build something that actually works.
It is one of the oldest tricks in the corporate playbook: bury a perfectly understandable problem under committees, abstractions, ontologies, tooling, generators, and architectural piety until the jungle of independent hackers — the people who build things because they are curious, stubborn, or simply having fun — is effectively locked out.
Then, of course, everyone solemnly congratulates themselves on having created an “open standard.”
Fortunately, reality had other plans.
The project failed.
-
@evan JRD is also linked data, but a lot easier to implement and understand. Why is LD really necessary? Is the problem of multiple schemas colliding with contextual ambiguity a real enough problem in practice to require all the complexity of LD up front?
It's always seemed like a bunch of YAGNI to me but I'm also not deep into this stuff so I'm honestly curious.
-
Do you like JSON-LD?
@evan JSON ate my son.
-
it's less "people don't like confrontation" and more "people don't universally agree to all terms". it's a real problem *if* you don't want to bludgeon everyone into accepting a de jure or de facto central registry. here, "de jure" is W3C and "de facto" is Mastodon, but make no mistake, you get bludgeoned either way... unless you explicitly allow for disagreements.
-
it's less "people don't like confrontation" and more "people don't universally agree to all terms". it's a real problem *if* you don't want to bludgeon everyone into accepting a de jure or de facto central registry. here, "de jure" is W3C and "de facto" is Mastodon, but make no mistake, you get bludgeoned either way... unless you explicitly allow for disagreements.
@trwnh@mastodon.social whatever happened to "be liberal in what you accept"?
-
Do you like JSON-LD?
It has been one of the sources of pain for me but its done haha
-
@julian funny thing is people are way less liberal than they think they accept. fedi expects you to share the exact same term definitions as them, with no recognition of even the *possibility* that it might be different.
-
@evan Yes, in theory I like the concept of JSON data clearly communicating what it means.
But, the fact that it hasn’t *really* caught on makes it a bit of a pain to try to do it right.
-
Do you like JSON-LD?
-
Do you like JSON-LD?
@evan No, but I spent several years struggling with XML schemas and it's definitely better than that
-
Do you like JSON-LD?
@evan Once you get it, it’s amazing. People just don’t have experience with semantic style systems. If the databases they learned first had unique urls to their fields and encouraged reuse of well established types, they would love it.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login